[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99 |
Date: |
Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:57:13 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Roger Leigh <address@hidden> writes:
> + for (unsigned int i = 0; *(text+i) != '\0'; ++i);
Please put a "continue" before the ";", to forestall warnings from
some compilers.
> +# GCC -std=gnu99 -std=c99 -std=iso9899:1999
> +# AIX -qlanglvl=extc99 -qlanglvl=stdc99
> +# Intel ICC -c99
> +# IRIX -c99
> +# Solaris -xc99
> +# Tru64 -c99
> +for ac_arg in "" -std=gnu99 -std=c99 -std=iso9899:1999 -c99 -xc99
> -qlanglvl=extc99 -qlanglvl=stdc99
Why do we need to try 3 options for GCC? Wouldn't "-std=gnu99" do?
If possible, I'd rather not try "-std=c99" or "-std=iso9899:1999"
(which are aliases), since it might cause the compiler to become
restrictive or pedantic. This is why the existing _AC_PROG_CC_STDC
doesn't try "gcc -ansi".
Similarly, for AIX I'd rather not try -qlanglvl=stdc99 since
-qlanglvl=extc99 does what we want. Come to think of it, the existing
macro should use -qlanglvl=extc89 instead of -qlanglvl=ansi; I'll make
that change now.
I just checked the Solaris documentation
<http://docs.sun.com/source/817-6697/cc_ops.app.html>, and "-xc99"
differs from the default behavior only in that it causes the compiler
to assume C99 semantics for library functions. But I would think that
this an unnecessary and perhaps even dangerous option in Solaris up
through Solaris 9 (the current version -- Solaris 10 has been
announced but it isn't shipping yet), since its standard C library
implements C89 semantics, not C99. So I'd rather omit -xc99 here.
(You could put in a comment to that effect.)
Thanks for your work here. Please let me know when the paperwork is
done, so that I can install the change and we can get it tested.
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, (continued)
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Kevin P. Fleming, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Kevin P. Fleming, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/02
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Kevin P. Fleming, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Steven G. Johnson, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Steven G. Johnson, 2004/12/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2004/12/04
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Dan Manthey, 2004/12/28